Sales v. Berzin
| Citation | 212 So.2d 23 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1613,1613 |
| Parties | Nancy E. SALES, Appellant, v. Robert BERZIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William John Mason, Miami, for appellant.
Donald B. Smith and William E. Kreuter of Smith, Lovett & Kreuter, Orlando, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Robert Berzin, filed suit in the circuit court in Seminole County, Florida, in or about the month of August 1967, against the defendant, Nancy E. Sales, a single woman. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had contracted to purchase from the defendant a parcel of real property situate in Seminole County, Florida, and, although the plaintiff was ready and willing to comply with the contract, the defendant violated the contract by refusing to convey the parcel to the plaintiff. The complaint concluded with a demand for a judgment which would order the defendant to convey the land to the plaintiff and, in the event of defendant's failure to comply, would effect the conveyance by operation of law.
The defendant filed motions to dismiss and for change of venue based on the theory that, the plaintiff and defendant being residents of Dade County, Florida, the proper venue is in Dade County. The trial court by order of 8 August 1967 denied the motions, and the defendant filed this interlocutory appeal from that order.
The parties have stipulated that they are both residents of Dade County, Florida, and were residents of Dade County, Florida, at the time the plaintiff's cause of action accrued and at the time of the filing of the plaintiff's complaint.
The question presented by this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff, as purchaser under a contract to buy and sell real property located in Seminole County, Florida, may bring an action for the specific performance of the contract against the defendant-vendor in the county where the land lies rather than in the county where the defendant-vendor resides.
Because defendant is a Florida resident the question is controlled by F.S. Section 47.011, F.S.A.1967. This is the general venue statute which provides that actions shall be brought only in the county (1) where the defendant resides, or (2) where the cause of action accrued, or (3) where the property in litigation is located. This statute affords the defendant a privilege to be sued in one of the three specified locations, but does not give the defendant a right to elect which of the locations may be most convenient for him. The election of the place for the suit reposes in the plaintiff, and may not be dictated by the defendant, provided the election is properly exercised under the statute. O'Brien v. Mitchell, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 189; Peterson v. Kirk, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 656; and Board of Public Instruction v. First National Bank, 1932, 111 Fla. 4, 143 So. 738, 741, 149 So. 213.
An examination of the complaint filed in this cause shows that the primary relief sought by the plaintiff is a transfer of title to the real property is Seminole County, Florida, pursuant to a contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The demand for relief specifically demands a final judgment ordering the defendant to convey said real property under the terms and conditions of the contract and, in the event of a failure or refusal by the defendant to make such conveyance, that the conveyance take place by operation of law. (We presume by this that the plaintiff means by operation of the final judgment under F.R.C.P. 1.570, 31 F.S.A.) By such allegations the complaint clearly indicates that there is 'property in litigation' in this cause; therefore, the above mentioned statute clearly confers on the plaintiff the right to place the venue in the county where such property is located.
Our holding is also supported by the 'local action rule'. Under the local action rule, a suit primarily seeking the transfer of title to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruth v. Department of Legal Affairs
...(Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Royal v. Parado, 462 So.2d 849, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Board of Trustees, 455 So.2d at 416; Sales v. Berzin, 212 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Ruth argues that this requirement, known as the local action rule, compelled dismissal by the trial court of the instant ......
-
Goedmakers v. Goedmakers
...Ideal Farm & Drainage District v. Mitchell, 97 Fla. 890, 122 So. 516 (1929). As the Fourth District explained in Sales v. Berzin, 212 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), when a plaintiff seeks to compel a change in the title to real property, the local action rule requires the suit to be brou......
-
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Cheesbro Roofing, Inc.
...Hendry Corp. v. State Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 313 So.2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Sales v. Berzin, 212 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968).7 Coastal Petroleum Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 492 So.2d 339 (Fla.1986), approving in part, quashing in part, Board of Trust......
-
Harvey v. Mattes
...personal property and the proceedings therefor, as far as the nature of the property permits.1 77 Am.Jur.2d 833 (1975); Sales v. Berzin, 212 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Hendry Corp. v. State Bd. of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 313 So.2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Franklin v. ......